UKC

Firstly, I will caveat this posting by saying that I voted remain in the EU referendum and I voted have Labour in the last few General Elections, though I voted for the candidate rather than the party.

I am really angry about the result of the referendum. Partly because of the result, but mostly because of the deceitful campaigning by both sides. Spin, fear mongering, half-truths and outright lies.

Now, I am ready to be shot down in flames, but IMO, having done much ringing of hands and researching various viewpoints, only a handful of politicians have come out of this with any credibility and have spoken the truth in which they actually believe. One of these is Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative "Leave" campaigner, though a small "c" would suffice.

He may, at initial appearances, seem to be yet another Eton toff (I hope he hasn't put his genitalia anywhere near a pig's mouth) with his plummy accent, but to hold this against him would be as discriminatory as it would be to any other member of our society. it doesn't take long to see past this and realise just what an exceptional parliamentarian this guy is. He appears to speak what he truly believes in, is courteous and polite whilst debating and has an obviously massive intellect. He has a magnificent understanding of parliament and is fearlessly principled. Check him out ripping into Theresa May about the non-debate regarding the European Arrest Warrant - no chance of getting a ministry soon then!

Now, it appears that Brexit will actually happen and like it or not, we are all going to have to deal with it. There is a lot of talk about getting our country back. How about getting our politicians back? How about having (for a change), two principled politicians facing each other across the Despatch Boxes at PMQs, debating in an noble manner, instead of the sickening yah-boo politics of the last half a century?

Here is a quote from J R-M about Jeremy Corbyn, whilst appearing on HIGNFY:

"He is a principled pacifist and he's expressed those views and he's said the police shouldn't necessarily shoot to kill terrorist, and he seems to have very little support from his own MPs in saying this, who have rather revelled in taking a stronger line. I don't agree with him on this, but I rather admire his courage in saying something which, is so deeply unpopular, but which he profoundly believes."

As Victoria Coren Mitchell replies: "That's a very generous thing to say."

Now, he has said that he will never be PM, perhaps he knows the general party will never elect him. But, I'm hoping when this shitstorm dies down, we have a small but significant change in our political system. A traditional left and right leaning parliament, instead of this homogeneity of champagne socialist, bickering over the minutiae of what are basically the small agendas (Brexit accepted - but this was a cross party issue). Good, healthy and above all, mature debate. I feel this is what is required to shape this country now and make the Kingdom United again.

So, not now, but sometime in the future, Moggy for PM anyone?

Seriously, check this guy out if you don't know him - loads of stuff on Youtube.

In reply to Hugh J:

I quite like him too, but I wonder how in touch with the general electorate he can be, when his nanny goes canvassing with him.

He does seem to have some principle, but I don't really know a lot about him, to be fair.

In reply to Hugh J:

I thought he was a comedy persona a bit like Ali G, The Pub Landlord, or Nigel Farage.

In reply to krikoman:



I suggest you check him out, I think you'll find he's not so out of touch as you think he maybe. He is a very good constituency MP (not mine). The nanny you refer to has been with his family for 50 years and now takes care of his children - so hardly snobbish about his "servants".

In reply to Hugh J:

You're probably right in much of what you say but he clearly isn't going to connect or communicate well with most of the electorate, which does limit his (and similar politicians) to being good MPs for constituencies where their qualities are appreciated.

Wasn't J R-M referred to as "the member for the eighteenth century", which sums him up well I think!

In reply to Hugh J:

I'm left leaning and a remain voter, have never voted tory but similarly do have a lot of respect for JRM. He's principled and he's also an expert in the intricacies of parliamentary process. I don't really agree with anything that he stands for but do respect his integrity. He's good on HIGNFY too.

In reply to MG:

Care to elaborate on that MG?

I'm working class, a Labour voter, a Remain voter and he's certainly connected with me.

In reply to Hugh J:

Certainly not a Gove..... Infinitely more subtle with more integrity.
His conservative political thinking,- well it's relevance is there for some and he expresses it better than most.
Too "plummy" for general consumption, which shouldn't be a negative really, but would be if he ran for PM if one was honest about it.

In reply to MG:

Sadly, he also stands about as much chance of becoming PM as I do.

JW

In reply to Hugh J:
There's an interesting and quite amusing video of the new(ish) "working class" Labour Jess Phillips MP spending an afternoon with JRM in his constituency. She is slightly bemused and it's a bit of an eye opener for her but admits that she can't stop herself liking him.

In reply to Postmanpat:

She come across as a bit of an idiot, if you'd have to vote for either of them, JRM would win hands down.

The last sentence told it all, "you'll be a Blairite".

In reply to Hugh J:



I suspect you are a little unusual. I also suspect he is a good sort to have in the background advancing slightly peculiar points of view but if put in any position of power, reality would rapidly expose all the shortcomings. A bit like Corbyn and Boris.

In reply to krikoman:


A well meaning idiot but nevertheless and idiot. I fear that is not unusual at back bench level.

In reply to Hugh J:

Highly entertained to read your post, because it pretty much mirrors my own thinking. I thoroughly dislike the Tory party and always have. Never voted for them, and have previously voted tactically (Liberal) in an attempt to keep them out. But I have seen quite a bit of Mr Rees-Mogg lately and I mostly agree with your assessment of him:

"He appears to speak what he truly believes in, is courteous and polite whilst debating and has an obviously massive intellect. He has a magnificent understanding of parliament and is fearlessly principled"

I'd go along with all of that with a slight caveat, in that I wouldn't be prepared to say 'massive' intellect without a lot more evidence. But a formidable intellect, to be sure.

I recently saw him being grilled by an interviewer and being taken to task for "voting against your own government". I thought his reply was magnificent: "Well, it's not my government, it's Her Majesty's. And I am voting in line with the manifesto upon which my party was elected".

I doubt I'd see eye to eye with Mr Mogg on a range of political issues but, given his intellect, his honesty, and his principled behaviour, if he was PM I'd be very likely indeed to vote Tory.

I think J R-M for PM is a splendid idea.

In reply to MG:
I can see your point.

However, can you really give me anyone sitting in parliament who could be the next (amongst others) Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill, Attley or even (with a shudder) Thatcher? I am truly open to suggestions.

Call me Tony? Call me Dave? Hmmmm££..

Maybe he's different enough to put back into politics what has been so evidently missing in recent times; the trust of the electorate. It might also be worth noting, with reference to your previous quote, that he is "the member for the eighteenth century" and that back then, the Conservative Party or the Whigs, were the party of the people.

In reply to Hugh J:

I broadly agree. He's beyond parody when he comes out with some absurdly conservative comment in his impossibly plummy accent - he makes Mr Cholmondley Warner sound positively common - and I disagree with him on pretty much everything but he seems to be principled, straight-talking, and unconcerned by popular opinion.

He's Jeremy Corbyn's upper-class, politically incorrect, right-wing, ultra-Catholic early 20th Century twin but I try not to hold his disadvantaged Rees-Mogg dynasty, Eton, Cambridge, Catholic, tobacco-profiteering, anti-animal welfare background against him. Anyone who proposes a bill to have the clocks in Somerset run 15 minutes behind London can't be all bad.

In reply to Hugh J:

A question for those of you with a good political knowledge (not me), irrelevant of your political leanings, when do you last think we had a 2 principled leaders (make it 3 if you like)facing each other in parliament, or 2 outstanding front benches?

Leaders and parliamentarians you would have faith in, on either side.
I am just curious on peoples opinions, do we see the past through rose tinted spectacles or were they better 40 years ago?
I like think MPs were generally better and more honest in their convictions 40 years ago, any suggestions?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Ha ha! Love it!

He knows it too. Not so sure about the straight-talking. He has the record for the longest word in Hansards! And he knows what it means.

In reply to Moley:
Churchill and Attley?

Oh sorry, that's nearly seventy years ago.

On second thoughts, perhaps not that long ago. Major and Smith, Perhaps?

In reply to Hugh J:


I'm sure anyone who went to Eton would, fortunately a lot of the slang from my school gets less attention from the OED.

I'm not keen on his habit of talking out bills.

In reply to Hugh J:

Jacob Rees-Mogg is in fact a caricature of himself.

In reply to Hugh J:



What, that old floccinaucinihilipilification cliche? Everyone uses that, surely?

Not as useful as sequipedalian anyway.

In reply to The New NickB:
>£. fortunately a lot of the slang from my school gets less attention from the OED.

Don't you believe it. Edmund Blackadder's reponse to Dr Johnson's indignation to the words Prince Goerge has underlined is like the best of humour . . . very true!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think you might have a bad case of hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.

In reply to Hugh J:


Which is what we desperately need.

Mick

In reply to The New NickB:


An example of his filibustering nonsense here: http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2014-10-22-Opinion-Bedroom-tax-bill-fili...

I wouldn't describe these and other Rees-Mogg tactics as either principled or democratic.

In reply to Hugh J:

replies in this thread are so 'british', as long as you are polite it doesn't matter what you stand for...
now go on 'dislike' what i said. hang on though , i was polite...

In reply to Big Top:


Why not democratic? He's an elected MP isn't he? He acts within the rules of the House. You might not like it (I didn't agree with him either) and maybe committee chairmen or the Speaker ought to restrict filibustering as far as reasonable but it's a widely used tactic and not undemocratic.

In reply to Hugh J:

apparently he's BFF with Louise Mensch ?

do you like her too ? nasty bitch that one.
basically they are both Milton Friedman disciples. just in different packages (and gender).

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Agree that filibustering should be restricted and should really be eradicated as a legit tactic. His behaviour is undemocratic because it prevents other views being heard, prevents matters proceeding to a vote and runs against the principle that legislative proposals by members should be considered properly by Parliament. Many an admirable Private Members Bill has been spiked in this way. Filibustering is almost invariably seen as an "intellectual" game by its proponents.

In reply to Hugh J:

Are you sure he is as principled as you think. From Wiki:

In March 2009, Rees-Mogg was forced to apologise to Trevor Kavanagh, former political editor of The Sun, after it was shown that a newsletter signed by Rees-Mogg had plagiarised sections of a Kavanagh article that had appeared in the newspaper over a month earlier.[16]

In December, a pamphlet which purported to show him talking to a local constituent and calling on the Government to "show more honesty" was criticised after it emerged that the "constituent" was a London-based employee of his investment firm.[17]